maybe not.

Hmm, okay. We'll see how things pan out, then.

That's as maybe, but that's not how the law sees it. The law is that if another company uses a trademark of yours or something you have copyrighted, you are allowed legal redress of any loss you may have suffered as a result of that. Beyond that all the law (at least in the EU, the US slightly different) allows is for you to force the culprit to stop using your design/property.

Apple's cases generally involve them making the claim that by using their property, the other company is attempting to steal sales from them by subterfuge because they operate in the same market and/or damaging them by reducing the exclusivity of their design. You may agree with that or you may not - courts in various places have done either. In this case,the Swiss Railway's losses amount to the fee they would be charging Apple to use the design, nothing more. Given they already licence the design, they can't claim damages for loss of exclusivity. Given they aren't operating in the same markets, they can't claim that Apple are trying to steal their business. The court will look at what the Swiss railways have charged other people in similar situations and come to a decision as to what they think Apple would have been charged if they'd gone about it the right way.

To receive 'damages', you have to show there has been damage. Beyond loss of licensing income, there has been no damage to the Swiss railways company. Therefore in a legal case, the almost certain outcome is that Apple would lose and the Swiss railways company will be awarded redress equal to the sum they would have charged Apple to license the design. That's it. It's very unlikely to be a mahoosive amount of money, especially not in the scale Apple measure money. So as has been said, Apple might as well just skip the court case bill and pay the Swiss railways what they would otherwise have asked for.

The law on these kinds of things is fairly clear and it's been around for ages. Everyone knows how it works.

Jon

So this will become a bit of a non issue once Apple pay up. Which I fully expect. It could be a nice little earner for them considering the number of iOS devices that it could be on with a few years.

Especially Apple, use somebody elses trade dress/IP thats ok. Somebody uses there trade dress/IP demand huge amounts

http://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU?t=17s

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas" - Steve Jobs.

This is the same man who called Android "a stolen product".

Large bits of it are. Just because he was a hypocrite doesn't mean he was wrong.

Jon

Apple pays out.
CLICKY

TBH I never thought it would come out any other way. I think we all agreed that the design was identical so Apple would lose in court. I doubt that there was any attempt to steal the design. I have seen websites that ask for the people who own the copyright to contact them website. Clearly trying to organise payment. At least Apple settled this rapidly and without much apparent fuss.

no Attempt! It was a blatant copy of an internationally renowned design and they only paid money when they were caught.

I agree the design was stolen, but I think he more meant 'passing off' than copying. Apple never claimed it was their design but they also didn't admit where they got it from. Thus the correct solution is for them to admit it and pay up. They'd have been better off doing the right thing at first obviously to avoid the 'Nelson Muntz' reaction but the result is fair in the end.

The irony is, I'm stealing the 'Nelson Muntz reaction'.

'It got the Nelson Muntz Reaction'

'What?'

Okay blatant copy I will accept, but would you have known who the copyright holder was or even if it was copyrighted and when it would expire?

Since when does that even matter?

"It's OK chaps, we can nick this one, no-one will know who the design truly belongs to anyway!"

The fact Apple neglected to credit, or even make reference to the original designers makes things worse, not better.

I doubt many people in London realise that the clocks in Canary Wharf are of the same design, that didn't stop the creators paying the licensing fee. You'd think Apple would be more careful about this sort of thing since they're all about litigation these days for other companies "stealing" their ideas.

There may have been a time factor. The designers of Canary Wharf might have had plenty of time to track down the copyright holders or they knew where they got the design from day one.